Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of the clinical results of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: surgical technique.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Sep; 92 Suppl 1 Pt 2:145-57.JB

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite its technical complexity, arthroscopic tibial inlay reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament has biomechanical advantages over transtibial procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of arthroscopic tibial inlay single-bundle and double-bundle techniques with those of the conventional transtibial single-bundle technique.

METHODS

We evaluated twenty-nine patients treated with primary posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and followed for longer than two years. Eight patients were treated with a transtibial single-bundle procedure; eleven, with an arthroscopic inlay single-bundle procedure; and ten, with an arthroscopic inlay double-bundle procedure. An Achilles tendon allograft was used in all cases. Each patient was evaluated on the basis of the Lysholm knee score, the mean side-to-side difference in tibial translation as measured on Telos stress radiographs, and the side-to-side difference in the range of motion of the knee.

RESULTS

The mean side-to-side difference (and standard deviation) in posterior tibial translation differed significantly between the arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle group (3.6 ± 1.43 mm) and the transtibial single-bundle group (5.6 ± 2.0 mm) (p = 0.023), although there was no significant difference between the arthroscopic inlay single-bundle group (4.7 ± 1.62 mm) and the transtibial group (p = 0.374). The mean range of motion and Lysholm scores were similar among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its technical difficulty, the arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle technique is our preferred method of reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament because it stabilizes posterior tibial translation better than do the other two methods.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and the Arthroscopy and Joint Research Institute, Yonsei University Health System, College of Medicine, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, South Korea.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

20844171

Citation

Kim, Sung-Jae, et al. "Comparison of the Clinical Results of Three Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques: Surgical Technique." The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, vol. 92 Suppl 1 Pt 2, 2010, pp. 145-57.
Kim SJ, Kim SH, Kim SG, et al. Comparison of the clinical results of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92 Suppl 1 Pt 2:145-57.
Kim, S. J., Kim, S. H., Kim, S. G., & Kung, Y. P. (2010). Comparison of the clinical results of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: surgical technique. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 92 Suppl 1 Pt 2, 145-57. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00185
Kim SJ, et al. Comparison of the Clinical Results of Three Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques: Surgical Technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92 Suppl 1 Pt 2:145-57. PubMed PMID: 20844171.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of the clinical results of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques: surgical technique. AU - Kim,Sung-Jae, AU - Kim,Sung-Hwan, AU - Kim,Sul-Gee, AU - Kung,Yun-Pei, PY - 2010/9/17/entrez PY - 2010/9/25/pubmed PY - 2010/10/12/medline SP - 145 EP - 57 JF - The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume JO - J Bone Joint Surg Am VL - 92 Suppl 1 Pt 2 N2 - BACKGROUND: Despite its technical complexity, arthroscopic tibial inlay reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament has biomechanical advantages over transtibial procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of arthroscopic tibial inlay single-bundle and double-bundle techniques with those of the conventional transtibial single-bundle technique. METHODS: We evaluated twenty-nine patients treated with primary posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and followed for longer than two years. Eight patients were treated with a transtibial single-bundle procedure; eleven, with an arthroscopic inlay single-bundle procedure; and ten, with an arthroscopic inlay double-bundle procedure. An Achilles tendon allograft was used in all cases. Each patient was evaluated on the basis of the Lysholm knee score, the mean side-to-side difference in tibial translation as measured on Telos stress radiographs, and the side-to-side difference in the range of motion of the knee. RESULTS: The mean side-to-side difference (and standard deviation) in posterior tibial translation differed significantly between the arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle group (3.6 ± 1.43 mm) and the transtibial single-bundle group (5.6 ± 2.0 mm) (p = 0.023), although there was no significant difference between the arthroscopic inlay single-bundle group (4.7 ± 1.62 mm) and the transtibial group (p = 0.374). The mean range of motion and Lysholm scores were similar among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its technical difficulty, the arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle technique is our preferred method of reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament because it stabilizes posterior tibial translation better than do the other two methods. SN - 1535-1386 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/20844171/Comparison_of_the_clinical_results_of_three_posterior_cruciate_ligament_reconstruction_techniques:_surgical_technique_ L2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00185 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -